The Forge Archives

Inactive Forums => The Riddle of Steel => Topic started by: Sneaky Git on August 06, 2002, 08:42:33 AM



Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Sneaky Git on August 06, 2002, 08:42:33 AM
I was looking at the character creation process as modeled in the revised printing of TROS.. and came across something that I'd like clarified:

Vhord von Drieder, our intrepid Stahlnish knight-errant, is kitted out in full mail and a plate cuirass.  I would assume that this would give him an AV of 10 for those locations protected by both.  Yet, the model character sheet only gives him an AV of 6..

Is this simply a mistake?  Or have I misunderstood the rules concerning armor?


Title: Re: A Question about Armor
Post by: Jake Norwood on August 06, 2002, 08:45:02 AM
Quote from: Sneaky Git
I was looking at the character creation process as modeled in the revised printing of TROS.. and came across something that I'd like clarified:

Vhord von Drieder, our intrepid Stahlnish knight-errant, is kitted out in full mail and a plate cuirass.  I would assume that this would give him an AV of 10 for those locations protected by both.  Yet, the model character sheet only gives him an AV of 6..

Is this simply a mistake?  Or have I misunderstood the rules concerning armor?


Armor doesn't compound. You keep the highest value over any particular area.

Jake


Title: Re: A Question about Armor
Post by: ShaneNINE on August 06, 2002, 11:22:48 AM
Quote from: Jake Norwood
Armor doesn't compound.


?!?!

Er... why not? That doesn't make much sense.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Mokkurkalfe on August 06, 2002, 11:47:46 AM
It might be so that a blow strong enough to go trough plate will just fly through the chain as well.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Sneaky Git on August 06, 2002, 12:19:30 PM
Quote from: Mokkurkalfe
It might be so that a blow strong enough to go trough plate will just fly through the chain as well.

That seems a little counter-intuitive.  Then again, this could just be another shining example of that wonderful American belief in "more is better!"


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Jake Norwood on August 06, 2002, 03:40:28 PM
There isn't actually chain under the plate. Even if there was, though, the major advantage of armor isn't it's absorption qualities, but rather its ability to deflect and disperse damage. How can chain underneath plate do that?

Jake


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: ShaneNINE on August 06, 2002, 07:35:00 PM
I don't know the physics of how it does, but it does! Plate + chain is definitely more protective than just chain by itself. If armor under plate isn't helpful at all why did anyone bother adding metal plates to armor like with scale armor or "plate and maille"?


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: ShaneNINE on August 06, 2002, 07:42:23 PM
Quote from: Mokkurkalfe
It might be so that a blow strong enough to go trough plate will just fly through the chain as well.


Do you really think so? If I'm going to hit you with a baseball bat and I give you a gambeson, a chain shirt, and a breast plate, are you going to leave the breast plate sitting there and face the bat with just the quilt and mail or are you going to put it all on?


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Jake Norwood on August 06, 2002, 09:07:21 PM
Quote from: ShaneNINE
I don't know the physics of how it does, but it does! Plate + chain is definitely more protective than just chain by itself. If armor under plate isn't helpful at all why did anyone bother adding metal plates to armor like with scale armor or "plate and maille"?


As far as I understand it, plate and maille refers either to:

1) Many metal plates with chain between them
2) partial harness with chain over the non-plate areas

I have never seen authentic plate harness with chain underneath. Ever. And I've done my homework.

I'm not saying it didn't exist--but I am saying that it wasn't useful enough to make a broad appearance. Check out any non-RPG sources on armor, especially ones written by academics or martial artists. It simply isn't practical. I'm not saying that it doesn't provide more protection--of course it does--but plate was so reliable on its own that chain simply covered the gaps, not support it from beneath.

Check it out.

Jake

ps. If you really want to do it anyway, keep the whole CP penalties from both, and increase the AV by 2 in the doubled-up areas.

Jake


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Mokkurkalfe on August 07, 2002, 01:48:22 AM
I hope there is a BIG section about armor in tFoB.
And that they are listed in the way you buy them(no "one metal shoulder cup: 15s"). And nice descriptions. And pictures.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Durgil on August 07, 2002, 03:45:16 AM
There is a HarnMaster/RoleMaster site by Klaus Ĉ. Mogensen that backs up what Jake is saying about multiple layers of armour at http://hjem.get2net.dk/Klaudius/Harn1.htm, at least with regards to protection from impact forces.  Basically, the protective value of multiple layers is actually computed by taking the square root of the sum of the squares.  If you use this method with the previous example you come up with 7 or 8 depending on whether you use normal rounding rules or not (6^2+4^2)^1/2=~7.75.  I know that this is true from a physics standpoint when dealing with a force.  The only thing cumulative about multiple layers is if you were trying to figure damage done by an edge or point impact.  In other words the protection from the force of the blow (or a compressive force i.e. a bear hug) is actually figured by figuring the square root of the sum of the squares, and the damage done by the point or edge of a weapon is figured cumulatively.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Durgil on August 07, 2002, 04:02:35 AM
That last post reminds me, can we expect to see any optional rules on armour and weapon damage?  I have always heard that shields, in particular, never lasted long in heavy combat.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Lance D. Allen on August 07, 2002, 05:34:20 AM
Quote
That last post reminds me, can we expect to see any optional rules on armour and weapon damage? I have always heard that shields, in particular, never lasted long in heavy combat.


::grins:: Yeah, with the current rules as they are, TRoS suffers what might be called the "SCA Effect" when it comes to shields. Sword and shield is an awesome combination, but if you can't batter through that shield eventually, it takes on godlike proportions. Imagine this situation...

Master Greatsworder attacks Mook With Shield. Mook With Shield blocks with everything he's got, and Master Greatsworder is unable to break through. MWS wins initiative, but has no way to attack, so MG attacks again. MWS takes it on the shield, and reduces damage to nill. Pools refresh. MG attacks full out, only holding back a couple dice. MWS blocks with all but a few, but due to the ease of blocking, defends successfully, taking init. MWS attacks, but is unable to break through the desperate defense of MG, though he keeps the init. MWS attacks conservatively, and MG swats it away with his superior CP, gaining init. MG attack ferociously.. and MWS blocks, yet again. Current tally: Shield has taken 4 hits with a GREATSWORD, but still seems, due to the "SCA Effect" to be fine. MG eventually gives up because all out attack will leave him defenseless, and so long as MWS is conservative, it could be a stalemate forever.

Mind, a real-life fight with the SCA-Effect on shields might not actually happen that way, nor a real-TRoS fight, but it very well could.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Sneaky Git on August 07, 2002, 05:38:58 AM
Quote from: Durgil
That last post reminds me, can we expect to see any optional rules on armour and weapon damage?  I have always heard that shields, in particular, never lasted long in heavy combat.

Speaking about weapon damage.. the rules for half-swording (p62) claim that "the Attack Target Number (ATN) when half-swording is 5, and the Defending Target Number (DTN) is 6."

Are these values for every weapon with which you may use this maneuver (Bastard, Long, and Great Swords.. and the Doppelhander), regardless of the variances in initial values?

And what about Poleaxes?  Although "techniques similar to the 'half-sword' allow many close-combat possibilities" (p254), the poleaxe proficiency does not explicitly allow for such maneuvers.  Does this mean poleaxes do not get the improved ATN & DTN?  Nor the shortened engagement range?


Title: reply to armour question
Post by: OllyG on August 07, 2002, 06:49:05 AM
mail armour is made as thick as possible within the constraint of weight.  So is plate.  If I combine a suit of each I get armour which is far too heavy to wear.
Why would I have armour that is only half as heavy as I can comfortably wear?  Just to be able to wear 2 suits?  No.
Combining 2 full suits of armour would never work.
Plate and Chain is less advandced plate.  Instead of articulated joints it has bits of mail dangling over your joints and at any areas not covered by plate.
Full plate is made of thick metal plates covering everything.  Any thicker and it would be too heavy to fight effectively.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Durgil on August 07, 2002, 07:35:00 AM
Early suits of plate were full suits of mail with relatively small metal plates attached to certain places such as the elbows, knees, and shoulders.  European metallurgy during this early period could not produce large pieces such as breastplates and backplates.  You may argue whether a knight wore a mail haulberk with a back and breast plate over it, but the attaching of small plates over mail did occure from the early 1100's to the late 1200's at least.  Now the person of that age who could afford that kind of protection might have been so far up the chain of command that they didn't anticipate have to swing their sword and only wore it for protection from stray arrows and the like.  My sources are Dr. Alen Williams, the Metallurgical Archeologist of the Royal Armoury at Leeds and David Edge, who wrote Arms and Armor of the Medieval Knight (an excellant read!).


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: ShaneNINE on August 07, 2002, 08:08:09 AM
Whoa! I'm not talking about wearing plate armor AND chain armor (complete sets) at once. I'm talking about wearing chain with metal plates strapped on top to the thigh or arms or chest. I'm no expert by far so I don't know what that would be called (I had thought it was "plate and maille"), but I've seen this in museums in Norway, Switzerland (awesome museum of medieval warfare in Zurich), and England (<- I think - I was 12 at the time).

I've also seen leather plates on top of chain.

My argument was on the assumption of adding these strapped on plates (or overlapping strips as in scale armor) over other armor such as leather or chain NOT wearing a complete set of chain under articulated plate. Sorry about the confusion - I should have been clearer.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Mike Holmes on August 07, 2002, 09:09:35 AM
Quote from: ShaneNINE
My argument was on the assumption of adding these strapped on plates (or overlapping strips as in scale armor) over other armor such as leather or chain NOT wearing a complete set of chain under articulated plate. Sorry about the confusion - I should have been clearer.


Well, Mr. ShaneNINE, Sir, I think that you equivocate.

The original poster said that he felt that overlapping armor should add to a total of 6+4 = 10. Jake said it does not compund thusly. You responded that this seemed wrong to you.

Do you stand by that statement, or did you misread the initial post? Should armor add, or should it not if it overlaps? As a corrollary, then, should armor composed of strapped on plates as you describe having existed (and which Durgil already pointed out existed) have a higher armor value than either of the component armors? If so, should it be the addition of the two values of the component parts? Or some other figure?

Please, elucidate,
Mike


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: ShaneNINE on August 07, 2002, 11:53:45 AM
Quote from: Mike Holmes
Do you stand by that statement, or did you misread the initial post? Should armor add, or should it not if it overlaps?


It was not my intent to confuse. Just a simple misunderstanding concerning just exactly we're talking about. When I read the initial post about adding plate and chain, I assumed we were talking about adding strap on metal plates to a chain shirt or leggings. It didn't occur to me that we were discussing wearing a full suit of chain and a full suit of plate.
And so I said that I thought the armor values should stack.

Regardless, though, yes I do stand by my statement. Armor values should overlap. And so should CP penalties and such. In the case of a full suit of chain worn under a full suit of plate, the penalties should be steep enough to keep anyone from doing it. But you should be able to mix and match armor types to get one set of mixed armor. Just because you want leather and chain doesn't mean you have to wear a full set of leather and a full set of chain. Something like leather plates to cover shoulders, forearms, knees, thighs, etc, seems totally reasonable to me.

Personally, I favor a system where you put your armor together piece by piece and add up the protective values. If I want my character to wear a leather vest over a gambeson, or a chain shirt over leather, or metal plates over leather, the system should be able to support that. For instance, I'd like to know how much of chain's armor value comes from the chain and how much comes from the quilt underneath. Just my preference.

Quote
As a corrollary, then, should armor composed of strapped on plates as you describe having existed (and which Durgil already pointed out existed) have a higher armor value than either of the component armors? If so, should it be the addition of the two values of the component parts? Or some other figure?


Yeah, Durgil pointed out that that type of armor existed but he posted that while I was writing my own post so I didn't see it until after I posted.

Armor composed of strapped on plates should have a higher value than either of the component parts. It should be the addition of the underlying armor and the strap on plates. However, I wonder if a metal plate strapped to your thigh gives the same protection as an equally thick metal plate casing from full articulated plate. I'm guessing not. Seems to me the rigidiy of the structure of the casing would absorb much of the energy of the blow whereas a metal plate strapped to your leg only dissapates the energy? Just guessing... that gets a little too detailed, I think.

I don't know about CP penalties, though. I don't know TROS well enough to hazard a guess how much of a CP penalty adding metal plates would warrant.

I hope that clears things up.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Lyrax on August 07, 2002, 12:31:11 PM
Almost non of the armor value, shaneNINE, comes from the quilt.  It comes from the chain.  The quilt is there to keep the chain from giving you a TERRIBLE rash all over your body (not to mention abrasions that leave you bleeding everywhere).

In suits of plate, chain was used to cover the parts of a person that could not easily be covered by plate (plate and maille).  In the best of circumstances, this could be only the armpit and the inside of the knee and elbow.  Under less ideal circumstances, one would have more chain and less plate.

If you wish to use an improved chain shirt, that could have an armor value of 4 or even 5, depending on how much you pay for it.  It might have plates of leather or steel upon it, in order to get such an armor value, but it is still considered a shirt of chain.

If you wish to have less than spectacular plate armor, you may opt to spend less and have protection of only 4 or even 3 in the areas that are difficult to cover with plate (groin, elbow, knee, armpit, neck, etc.)

At least, this is how I see it and what I would tell you if you were in my session.  I would let you describe your armor however you wanted, but how much protection is offered depends on how much you are willing to pay and what you are trying to buy.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Brian Leybourne on August 07, 2002, 12:43:28 PM
Quote from: Sneaky Git

Speaking about weapon damage.. the rules for half-swording (p62) claim that "the Attack Target Number (ATN) when half-swording is 5, and the Defending Target Number (DTN) is 6."

Are these values for every weapon with which you may use this maneuver (Bastard, Long, and Great Swords.. and the Doppelhander), regardless of the variances in initial values?


INJNDIPHOTV (standard disclaimer),

But yes, I believe so in the case of everything but the doppelhander. Bastard-, Long- and Greatswords are not that different when held in a spear-like grip, so yes, I would say all three end up with the same values as listed under "half swording".

The Doppelhander, however, uses instead the alternate stats listed under the weapon description. It mentions holding the grip higher up, and displays stats for very long and long, so the stats for long would be when held in that manner. Note that it says "half-sword like maneuvers", not just half swording. You'll also note that the thrust and defense ATN's get much better at that range.

Quote from: Sneaky Git
And what about Poleaxes?  Although "techniques similar to the 'half-sword' allow many close-combat possibilities" (p254), the poleaxe proficiency does not explicitly allow for such maneuvers.  Does this mean poleaxes do not get the improved ATN & DTN?  Nor the shortened engagement range?


No, in this case I'm pretty sure it just means that the fighter will be using more rapid thrust attacks and not doing bigger slashes etc. Again, techniques similar to half sword, not half-swording.

Having said that, I *would* allow a poleaxe wielder to shorten the length by holding the weapon further up the half, but I would require them to spend CP and roll for it like half-swording. I wouldn't change the stats though, being able to adjust the range on the fly is a massive benefit as it is.

Brian.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Mike Holmes on August 07, 2002, 01:25:50 PM
Quote
Regardless, though, yes I do stand by my statement. Armor values should overlap. And so should CP penalties and such. In the case of a full suit of chain worn under a full suit of plate, the penalties should be steep enough to keep anyone from doing it.

Just to continue to be clear, nobody has even proposed this as possible. One poster has said on the contrary that it's impossible, thought there is some question as to exaclty what he was refering to (I think his argument was to address overlapping, but we would have to ask him). In any case he was not arging for it, and as such but there's no need to make rules against something that we all agree makes no sense.

Quote
But you should be able to mix and match armor types to get one set of mixed armor. Just because you want leather and chain doesn't mean you have to wear a full set of leather and a full set of chain. Something like leather plates to cover shoulders, forearms, knees, thighs, etc, seems totally reasonable to me.
And, I think, to anyone else. Nobody has said that one could not do that either. Th3e onlyu question has been regarding overlap.

Quote
Personally, I favor a system where you put your armor together piece by piece and add up the protective values. If I want my character to wear a leather vest over a gambeson, or a chain shirt over leather, or metal plates over leather, the system should be able to support that.  

Despite the arguments from others here that it doesn't work that way not the least of which includes information from Harn (long recognized as the most historical of RPG sources), and the estimable Mr. Norwood, student of all things medieval, and creator of the game? You must be confident indeed.

Quote
Armor composed of strapped on plates should have a higher value than either of the component parts. It should be the addition of the underlying armor and the strap on plates.
And your evidence other than personal opinion is..?

Since this was not done historically, isn't it fairly safe to assume that this is inefficient. That the only reasonable configurations are those presented? Isn't that what the system is telling you? Do you really find it that unrealistic given the evidence and well stated arguments presented?

Quote
I don't know about CP penalties, though. I don't know TROS well enough to hazard a guess how much of a CP penalty adding metal plates would warrant.
Again, unless designed as part of the armor, I'd guess prohibitively high. The fact that composite armors are presented, means that the options that do work reasonably are available. Oh, I'd allow you to do what you're asking to do as a GM. Obviously you can strap on all sorts of stuff if you like. I'd just not give you much if any bonus to your armor value, while assigning awful CP penalties. Which at some point is inefficient.

Mike


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Durgil on August 07, 2002, 02:24:51 PM
Quote from: Lyrax
Almost non of the armor value, shaneNINE, comes from the quilt.  It comes from the chain.  The quilt is there to keep the chain from giving you a TERRIBLE rash all over your body (not to mention abrasions that leave you bleeding everywhere).

That isn't exactly correct.  Mail gives very little protection against an impact force.  All that it was really good at was stopping the edge or point of a weapon.  The quilt or padding underneath helped to absorb some of the force of the blow along with the other things that you mentioned.

Quote from: Lyrax
In suits of plate, chain was used to cover the parts of a person that could not easily be covered by plate (plate and maille).  In the best of circumstances, this could be only the armpit and the inside of the knee and elbow.  Under less ideal circumstances, one would have more chain and less plate.

In later period suits of armour, this is true, but like I pointed out in my previous post, in earlier periods, mail was used as a foundation armour to strap on plates of metal over mostly small, important parts of the body such as elbows, shoulders, and knees.  And yes, leather straps were used at times but they could be easily broken.  Metal wire was more common with the higher quality armour.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: ShaneNINE on August 07, 2002, 04:05:16 PM
[quote="Mike Holmes]Despite the arguments from others here that it doesn't work that way not the least of which includes information from Harn (long recognized as the most historical of RPG sources)[/quote]

Hârn does support what I'm saying. That's how the armor system works in HârnMaster. You select your armor layer by layer, piece by piece, and (gasp!) the armor values are cumulative. Of course, it's just a game. But if it's good enough for Hârn (and all the medieval experts in the online Hârn cummunity, including some armorers) it's good enough for me.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Lyrax on August 07, 2002, 06:35:56 PM
Armorers are not the experts we should be consulting.  They know a great deal, of course, about how to make armor.  The problem is that we are talking about the business end of armor.

The experts to consult, then, are those who have been attacked while wearing armor.  Since these are much more abundant in previous periods of time than this one, we must look to what has been done in history, and make the rules fit that.

Since nobody ever bothered with a full suit of chain and a full suit of plate, I don't think the rules should condone doing this.  Jake's half-cumulative rule is, in my mind, plenty good.

Oh, and why don't we do armor layer by layer?  Because they are a set.  Nobody ever even considered wearing plate armor without something on underneath.  Also, they are different kinds of armor.  The plate armor keeps you from getting killed, and the quilted stuff makes it not only bearable to wear, but also bearable to get hit.

Hope this clarifies.  If it doesn't, forget and ignore it.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Lance D. Allen on August 07, 2002, 11:36:01 PM
A gambeson, which is what that quilted undergarment is called, has no real armor effect of it's own against impact. "Armor-grade" leather doesn't have much by itself, either for that matter. Chainmail's primary purpose to avoid injury by cutting, though it worked decently with wider bladed thrusting strikes as well. Putting this under plates is going to have a rapidly diminishing return against the impact of an attack. Rigid plates, whether metal or boiled leather, are the only thing which can really resist impact.

I've taken hits on bare cloth which is equivalent to a gambeson, and I've taken hits on "armor-grade" (meaning about 1/4" thick, but not cuirboulli) leather over cloth as well, and it hurts about as much as a bare-skin hit would. The leather had some effect (as such, I *might* give equivalent stuff in TRoS an AV of 1, if I were feeling generous) but the cloth.. none.

The only real purpose of a gambeson is to avoid armor bites (where you get pinched by two bordering plates when struck right) and to avoid chafing and rubbing. It isn't to protect you against being hit, but to protect you against your own armor.

Let's put it another way.. If you're wearing plate, you're going to be nigh invincible in any place that it covers already (AV 6, plus an average toughness of 4 equals a Damage Reduction of 10; I've only seen a few hits with more than 10 damage, and never one with more than 13). The additional amount of protection of adding chain in that area wouldn't be worth the stiff CP penalties. I'd allow you to do it, and to even directly stack the AV... but what I would also do is double the CP penalties of the more unwieldy pieces of armor. Layering massively decreases your mobility. Sure, you might be invincible.. But if you can't move, I'll just knock you over and stab a dagger into the gaps of your gorget.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Sir Eldaen on August 08, 2002, 04:32:23 AM
Quote from: Lyrax

Almost non of the armor value, shaneNINE, comes from the quilt. It comes from the chain. The quilt is there to keep the chain from giving you a TERRIBLE rash all over your body (not to mention abrasions that leave you bleeding everywhere).


Wrong. Plain wrong. There'll be no rash. Chain feels cool and smooth on skin. The only problem is hair. If you wear a chain hood and your hair isn't trimmed at least as short as half an inch, you might experience severe problems with the hairs tangling in the rings of the mail. Body hair is different, however - there are none or almost none such problems.

Quilt gives no protection?! Allright, tonight we have reenactment training session - I'll go and tell the ones who wear only quilt. I suppose we'll all die laughing. Why on earth should someone then wear quilt under his chainmail and not... silk, for example?! 'Cause it looks so cool when shining through the mail? Crap, I say!

Quote from: Lyrax

In suits of plate, chain was used to cover the parts of a person that could not easily be covered by plate (plate and maille). In the best of circumstances, this could be only the armpit and the inside of the knee and elbow. Under less ideal circumstances, one would have more chain and less plate.


HA!!! Come on - give it a try! Try putting on a chain hauberk that is closed in the arm pits and then try to lift your arm... Shoulder height is the limit! ALL chain mails were open in the arm pits. And most quilt tunics were, too. But that's not mainly because of movements but rather because of temperature.

Oh, and may I humbly add that this goes for all the other parts mentioned? Try going down on your knees when wearing chainmail leggings that are not opened, or try bowing the arm when there's mail inside the elbow... Might as well wear plate.

Chainmail IS flexible to a degree, but even mail has its limits. Those limits are reached when the single contracting rings have no place to move anymore. At this point, chainmail (in terms of flexibility) becomes just like plate.

Quote from: Mike Holmes


Quote

Armor composed of strapped on plates should have a higher value than either of the component parts. It should be the addition of the underlying armor and the strap on plates.


And your evidence other than personal opinion is..?


Oh... personal experience?!?

Quote from: Lyrax
Oh, and why don't we do armor layer by layer?  Because they are a set.  Nobody ever even considered wearing plate armor without something on underneath.  Also, they are different kinds of armor.  The plate armor keeps you from getting killed, and the quilted stuff makes it not only bearable to wear, but also bearable to get hit.


But that limits your options as a player what to wear underneath... where's the details?


Quote from: Wolfen
A gambeson, which is what that quilted undergarment is called, has no real armor effect of it's own against impact.


Oddly, mine does...


Quote from: Wolfen
Rigid plates, whether metal or boiled leather, are the only thing which can really resist impact.


Which then is the obvious reason that they have only seldomly been worn in the early middle ages? And don't tell me they didn't know how to make plates... even the romans did. And helmets... Helmets are found in all periods. Now what were they made of...?

Quote from: Wolfen
I've taken hits on bare cloth which is equivalent to a gambeson, and I've taken hits on "armor-grade" (meaning about 1/4" thick, but not cuirboulli) leather over cloth as well, and it hurts about as much as a bare-skin hit would.


Try it with bare skin and then compare again... :-) Believe me, I did both and there are differences. Not too much for cloth and leather, I agree, but quilt? Most definately yes.

Quote from: Wolfen
The only real purpose of a gambeson is to avoid armor bites (where you get pinched by two bordering plates when struck right) and to avoid chafing and rubbing. It isn't to protect you against being hit, but to protect you against your own armor.


That's one of its effects, but surely not the only reason (see above).


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Mokkurkalfe on August 08, 2002, 07:47:31 AM
Question:
Would a quilt matter at all if I gave it a good schwung with a sword or a warhammer?

Quote
Why on earth should someone then wear quilt under his chainmail and not... silk, for example?! 'Cause it looks so cool when shining through the mail? Crap, I say!


I thought(learned from countless RPG's that said that soft armor protects from mass weapons) that the quilt protected the wearer from the impact, while the chainmail took care of the cutting(they were mostly intended to protect from swords after all).
Since reenactments are more about the impact and less about the cutting edge, my guess would be that the gambeson is even more important there.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Durgil on August 08, 2002, 08:28:36 AM
So ideally, the system should account for how much force is landed by a weapon and nullify a portion of that force due to the various layers of protection at the location of the blow.  With the remaining force and the type of weapon used (i.e. edged, point, or blunt), determine how much blunt trauma is inflicted to the said area and in the case of edged or pointed weapons, whether that remaining force is sufficient enough to penetrate one or more of the layers of protection.

Try to imagine a powerful swing of a broadsword landing on the side of a knight wearing a mail hauberk over a quilt gambeson.  A certain amount of that force would be negated by the mail and quilt layers (slightly more by the quilt layer, IMO), but there is enough force left to break a few ribs and causing organ damage to the lungs and internal bleeding.  It also takes a certain amount of force to cut through the mail with the edge of the sword.  If the force left from the combined armour absorption is great enough, it will slice through the mail as well as easily cutting through the quilt.

A bit complicated I admit, but this game does such an excellent job of simulating the intricacies melee combat, then surely we should be able to formulate more realist rules on armour as well.

I do not mean to step on anyone’s toes here or start a flame war.  I’m just trying to gain a better understand of how things really work and to try add something to the game.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Anthony I on August 08, 2002, 12:09:28 PM
Quote from: Mokkurkalfe
Question:
I thought(learned from countless RPG's that said that soft armor protects from mass weapons) that the quilt protected the wearer from the impact, while the chainmail took care of the cutting(they were mostly intended to protect from swords after all).
Since reenactments are more about the impact and less about the cutting edge, my guess would be that the gambeson is even more important there.


The ARMA did some test cutting on various materials, including mail and a padded cloth.  The padded cloth was suprisingly difficult to cut, in many cases tougher than the mail.  I can't find the link to the article about the gambeson but you can check out http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/TestCutting/TestCuttingEvent2.htm       for info on how well mail and leather fared against sword blows.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Lyrax on August 09, 2002, 10:27:59 AM
Quote from: Sir Eldaen

Wrong. Plain wrong. There'll be no rash. Chain feels cool and smooth on skin. The only problem is hair. If you wear a chain hood and your hair isn't trimmed at least as short as half an inch, you might experience severe problems with the hairs tangling in the rings of the mail. Body hair is different, however - there are none or almost none such problems.


What if a single link gets damaged?  It will dig into your skin and MAKE YOU BLEED.  What if ten links, or thirty, or more, are damaged (which is the entire purpose of armor, to get damaged instead of you)?  You need a gambeson to protect you from your own armor.  Perhaps you are right, and there will be no rash.  But, if you ever fight and take any kind of hit, you will have an inordinate amount of bloodloss -- even more than you normally would.  Metal can be very sharp.

Quote from: Sir Eldaen

Quilt gives no protection?! Allright, tonight we have reenactment training session - I'll go and tell the ones who wear only quilt. I suppose we'll all die laughing. Why on earth should someone then wear quilt under his chainmail and not... silk, for example?! 'Cause it looks so cool when shining through the mail? Crap, I say!


Because it protected the person from the armor and was much cheaper than silk.  The combination of usefulness, price and availibility made the gambeson the choice of undergarment for armor-wearing individuals.  As for those wearing only quilt?  You stand over there with your quilt, I'll get my sword, and we'll see whether you want any more armor.

Quote from: Sir Eldaen

HA!!! Come on - give it a try! Try putting on a chain hauberk that is closed in the arm pits and then try to lift your arm... Shoulder height is the limit! ALL chain mails were open in the arm pits. And most quilt tunics were, too. But that's not mainly because of movements but rather because of temperature.


The gambeson worn underneath a suit of plate armor (which is what I was referring to, BTW) has chain on the armpits and other vulnerable areas.  This is history, not reenactment, so it has some more weight than anything we do today.  Yes, it isn't a full suit of chain.  Yes, it is quilted in most places.  No, no knight would ever, in his right or even his left mind, go out into battle wearing only the gambeson.  It would do almost nothing versus a sword, warhammer, flail or polearm.  Probably a little against a maul, but not much.

Quote from: Sir Eldaen

But that limits your options as a player what to wear underneath... where's the details?


What, do you want to try wearing silk?  Only the gambeson?  This is suicidal.  Neither one will protect you enough to save your life.

Quote from: Sir Eldaen

Try it with bare skin and then compare again... :-) Believe me, I did both and there are differences. Not too much for cloth and leather, I agree, but quilt? Most definately yes.


Leather (boiled plate, not soft) is actually a pretty good armor.  woodenswords.com sells a high-quality leather buckler that can deflect a hand, a waster, or even a small-caliber bullet with no difficulty.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Durgil on August 09, 2002, 12:01:25 PM
Are you trying to tell me that the quilted gambeson was only worn for comfort?

Look, Medieval padding was not quilted in the modern sense; it was typically tubes of linen, wool, or fustian and stuffed with a variety of materials such as horse hair, linen, or wool-this applies both to helmet padding and to gambesons or arming coats.  They didn't do this out of a love for tubular styled clothes; they did that to protect themselves from the impact of their metal plates hitting their flesh.  Hasn't anyone here ever played crochet?  When the two balls are side by side, you stick your foot on top of one of them and whack it.  The other ball goes flying off as if it has been hit because it essentially has been hit.

The ideal protection against any force is to absorb most or all of it with padding, but in our situation with cutting and piercing weapons, just padding alone would end up getting chopped to bits.  So, you put a metal skin over it.  In the early middle Ages, due to their limited technology, mail was the metal skin over their padding.  Later, they were able to attach metal plates to the mail; think of them as miniature metal shields.  Later still, technology advanced so that they were able to connect a lot of these little metal shields in such a manner that it didn’t considerably restrict movement and could therefore get rid of, at first, some of the mail, and as time went on most or all of the mail.

Now if you want to say that the values in the book reflect the multiple layers, than that’s fine, but don’t try to tell me that the only layer that mattered to defense was the outer layer or the best protective layer.  If that’s the case, then you might as well go back to using hit points IMHO.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Bob Richter on August 09, 2002, 03:01:47 PM
Quote from: Durgil
Are you trying to tell me that the quilted gambeson was only worn for comfort?

The ideal protection against any force is to absorb most or all of it with padding, but in our situation with cutting and piercing weapons, just padding alone would end up getting chopped to bits.  So, you put a metal skin over it.  


That's not the ONLY reason for the metal skin. Padding, by itself, won't stop blunt-force trauma. The foam padding inside a football helmet, for example, would be almost worthless in stopping a hammer-blow (while the helmet does well enough.) Thus the thin layer of plastic outside. It has two major functions:
1) It will deflect any blow that is less than square (reducing the force of the blow,) a function padding can not perform.
2) It distributes the force of the blow over a larger area, reducing the pressure of the blow.

And the gambeson WAS worn for comfort. Chain and Plate mail are not comfortable. They will cause chafing with extended use. While it has some function in absorbing blunt shock (something it still doesn't do at all well,) its PRIMARY purpose is to protect the wearer from his armor (whether discomfort or potential lethality.)


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Durgil on August 09, 2002, 07:52:39 PM
Quote
While it has some function in absorbing blunt shock (something it still doesn't do at all well,) its PRIMARY purpose is to protect the wearer from his armor (whether discomfort or potential lethality.)

I've got historical experts such as David Edge, John Paddock, Brian Price, and Alan Williams whose writings contradict this so called PRIMARY purpose of yours.  Why don't you try to take a look at what some in the ARMA group say about this very subject, you might just be surprised.

And by the way, I played 9 years of football with a couple on the collegiant level, and if the discomfort of just the hard plastic against you skin was the only reason to put the pads underneath, then why not something lighter and less bulky, like a medium thickness cloth shirt and a bandana underneath you helmet?  Both the hard, rounded surface and the pads are neaded to prevent serious injury on the battle field and the playing field.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Lance D. Allen on August 10, 2002, 01:00:39 PM
Okay gentlemen, sounds to me like this argument is getting a little heated. Let's not give Ron or Jake a reason to chastise when they come back, eh? Keep it civil, keep it unemotional. Or else, find each other, put on armor, and beat each other in an effort to prove your points upon the body of your opponent. It's not only stress-relieving, but it's fun, too.

Quote from: Durgil
And by the way, I played 9 years of football with a couple on the collegiant level, and if the discomfort of just the hard plastic against you skin was the only reason to put the pads underneath, then why not something lighter and less bulky, like a medium thickness cloth shirt and a bandana underneath you helmet?

  In response to:

Quote
That's not the ONLY reason for the metal skin. Padding, by itself, won't stop blunt-force trauma. The foam padding inside a football helmet, for example, would be almost worthless in stopping a hammer-blow (while the helmet does well enough.) Thus the thin layer of plastic outside. It has two major functions:

  and:
Quote
While it has some function in absorbing blunt shock


Seems to me that the protective role of padding isn't ignored, just underrated. It also seems to me that direct personal experience will probably be the only way to resolve this issue. So unless you're willing to get into armor and give it a try (which I am in a position to do, and am willing to do, myself) then I think the point is moot.

Durgil: I'll concede your point about medieval quilting being considerably different than what we consider quilting today. I have to admit some amount of historical inaccuracy is in order due to WHERE I have seen the fighters... Phoenix, AZ is not the place for heavy, heavy layers, especially under armor.

I will however say that soft-leather has almost no value in absorbing blunt-force trauma. It will protect the skin itself from being smashed open by the impact, but it will not prevent heavy bruising, broken bones or other such injuries. The reason I even mention soft-leather is that it is used in conjunction with various types of plate, such as in the brigandine I wear. It is not cuirboulli that I'm using, so it's not a leather "plate" protecting me.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Bob Richter on August 10, 2002, 01:20:12 PM
Quote from: Durgil
Quote
And by the way, I played 9 years of football with a couple on the collegiant level, and if the discomfort of just the hard plastic against you skin was the only reason to put the pads underneath, then why not something lighter and less bulky, like a medium thickness cloth shirt and a bandana underneath you helmet?  Both the hard, rounded surface and the pads are neaded to prevent serious injury on the battle field and the playing field.


*sighs, shakes his head*

That's exactly what I was saying. Try reading what I type next time.

The padding's there to stop the plastic from giving you a concussion, the plastic's there to stop whatever's OUTside it from giving you a concussion. Neither is particularly valulable alone, thus why buying armor in layers is silly.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Mokkurkalfe on August 10, 2002, 01:25:24 PM
Quote
The padding's there to stop the plastic from giving you a concussion, the plastic's there to stop whatever's OUTside it from giving you a concussion.


Nicely put. You've convinced me.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Mokkurkalfe on August 10, 2002, 01:46:44 PM
Um, wasn't the question wether plate and chain shoud accumulate their AV's or not?
Since every armour, without exception, has quilt beneath it, this discussion is pretty pointless in a tRoS point of view.
Still interesting, though...


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Lyrax on August 10, 2002, 06:38:57 PM
Yes, and we decided that armor is bought in sets (gambeson + plate or chain) because it's suicidal to use one without the other.


Title: Re: A Question about Armor
Post by: Durgil on August 11, 2002, 06:50:26 AM
I believe this is how the subject started which, in turn, brought out these other related points, questions, and observations.
Quote from: Sneaky Git
Vhord von Drieder, our intrepid Stahlnish knight-errant, is kitted out in full mail and a plate cuirass.  I would assume that this would give him an AV of 10 for those locations protected by both.  Yet, the model character sheet only gives him an AV of 6.

In a world where characters may very well find themselves scavaging for parts and pieces to argment or repair their own defenses, I personally prefer a system that individually accounts for the different types of protection which exist.  This, in turn, allows each individual GM to determine which combinations of armour he or she will allow.

If anyone is interested, I've started on some House Rules that account for different layers of armour.  I will try my best not to alter the overall flow of the system or unbalance the affect of armour, but it's going to take me some time.  If you agree with at least part of what I've been saying in this post or what to make any suggestions, just send me a message to the address below, and I'll get you a copy when I complete them.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Lyrax on August 11, 2002, 09:45:27 AM
The way I see it, metal armor doesn't "layer" very well.  Armor scavenging, however, is likely to make a person armored in some places and unarmored in others.  See the "armor" table in Book IV: The Codex of Battle in The Book for some information regarding what individual armor parts have what armor values.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Jake Norwood on August 12, 2002, 09:16:15 AM
Yikes!

Look what happens when I'm gone...

Referring to the use of attacking plates over various places on a suit of chain, such as disks over the pecs, and plate on the elbows, etc., make the DR 6 on those spots (or maybe 5 on the chest spots), and call it good.

Armor rules in TROS are simple for a few reasons:

While I know lots of stuff about Blossfechten (unarmored fighting) and about how to kill a guy in armor, I know little other than academic information and SCA experience with armor...which I will admit is very little. What I do know is that armor both deflects and disperses the force of a successful attack. Because in TROS damage comes from both force and sill, a single armor rating is sufficient and quick. Part of TROS's claim to fame in the "realistic combat" sense is that, like combat, it's fast and based on a participant's decisions.

I'm curious to see those house rules.

And remember, whatever our sources, we know *jack* about real armor in a fight. The fight interpereters at Royal Armories in Leeds know more than any of us do or probably will, and even they aren't in the habit of stiking at one another with intent to kill. Techniques with a sword are easier to re-create and understand. Armor is hard, and if we get into complicated rules we enter into a pretention that we know something that a bunch of gamer can't possibly understand beyond acadamia and pretentious claims from SCA/Boffer fighting/test cutting against stationary objects (which is the best of the 3, but still not enough).

Jake


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Jaif on August 12, 2002, 09:23:16 AM
I honestly believe many of you are overthinking the situation.  Basically, the rules allow for an AV of up to 6 in any given spot.  Do you disagree, and believe that's too weak given the strength of the weapons?  I believe that AV 10 is way, way out of line.

-Jeff


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Lyrax on August 12, 2002, 05:01:37 PM
Not to be totally contrary, but high-quality armor can get up to 7 or 8 in armor value.  Any more though, and I agree that magic would need to be involved.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Durgil on August 26, 2002, 04:34:41 AM
If anyone here is interested, I've submitted some house rules that are heavily influenced by HarnMaster at this website http://www.shadowharn.net/viewtopic.php?t=884&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=.  Please, let me know what you think.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Irmo on August 28, 2002, 08:28:46 PM
Quote from: Lyrax
Yes, and we decided that armor is bought in sets (gambeson + plate or chain) because it's suicidal to use one without the other.


That might be true for noblemen with money, but what about the general levy?


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Lyrax on August 28, 2002, 08:42:21 PM
I'd say that the general levy has several options:

A) Use no armor.

B) Use cheap armor.

C) Use the lord of the land's armor.

Soldiers can take option C) because the lord of the land buys their armor, raiders and such often take option B) and most peasants prefer option A) because they wish to stay away from getting killed.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: contracycle on August 29, 2002, 04:39:46 AM
The levy is unlikely to have armour; hell they may not even have weapons so much as sticks and assorted farming implements.  A wealthy peasant may be expected to keep, by law, a gambeson or leather jerkin which would be worn probably with a skull cap or pot helm.  If you are thinking of actual men-at-arms, they will likely be armed at their lords expense.  Mercenaries pay for their own.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Lance D. Allen on August 29, 2002, 06:26:23 AM
Quote
A wealthy peasant may be expected to keep, by law, a gambeson or leather jerkin which would be worn probably with a skull cap or pot helm.


Something probably passed down from father to son, as well. In addition, they very likely would keep a bill or a pike, or some sort of pole weapon, in case they are ever called to war. A peasant with a sword, on the other hand, probably has a very interesting story indeed....[/quote]


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Irmo on August 29, 2002, 07:45:57 AM
Quote from: contracycle
The levy is unlikely to have armour; hell they may not even have weapons so much as sticks and assorted farming implements.  A wealthy peasant may be expected to keep, by law, a gambeson or leather jerkin which would be worn probably with a skull cap or pot helm.


And with that we would again be at the issue of gambesons worn as the only armor ;)

Quote
If you are thinking of actual men-at-arms, they will likely be armed at their lords expense.  Mercenaries pay for their own.


Provided their lord can meet the expenses.


By the way, Osprey's "Knights of Christ" depicts a Turkopole of the Hospitallers in quilted armor, a so-called aketon (from Al Qutun), noted for its light weight yet strength. A foot soldier in the same plate is also depicted with quilted armor for the torso, though he wears mail leggings. He is said to be based on contemporary writings with details taken out of the Maciejowski bible. For reference, this is plate A in Osprey's "The Knights of Christ" in the Men-at-Arms series and follows page 24. The book is written by Terence Wise, and illustrated by Richard Scollins. ISBN 0-85045-604-5


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Durgil on August 29, 2002, 09:58:41 AM
Quote from: Lyrax
Not to be totally contrary, but high-quality armor can get up to 7 or 8 in armor value.  Any more though, and I agree that magic would need to be involved.

I've thought a lot about how to do this high quality, low quality, and magical armour.  I have decided, with at least my armour rules, that only the Integrity Value should be raised or lowered.  Think of it this way, in my rules a plate of metal absorbs/deflects a certain amount of damage.  That doesn't change whether it's made out of bronze, wrought iron, low steel, or high steel; what changes with each one of these types of plates is how much force it can withstand before it is damaged.  The numbers I used for the IV's of all the metal armours are based on the armour and the weapon striking the armour being made out of wrought iron.  There were high quality suits of armour in the 16th and 17th Centuries that were made of steel that was 5 or 6 times harder (and therefore roughly the same times stronger) than wrought iron.  Therefore in that case, I would multiple that armour's IV by 5 or 6 times, which essentially means that unless you are also using a superiorly made steel weapon, your only chance to defeat the wearer would be to beat him to death because you will not break through that armour.  Let's not forget Frodo's mail shirt made of mithril.  In the books, the spear thrown by that orc didn't pierce that armour, but it didn't protect him from the force of the blow.  It knocked the wind out of him plus it knocked him off of his feet.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Mike Holmes on August 29, 2002, 11:12:59 AM
Quote from: Durgil
In the books, the spear thrown by that orc didn't pierce that armour, but it didn't protect him from the force of the blow.  It knocked the wind out of him plus it knocked him off of his feet.


What this argues for is a blunt trauma rule. For every three points of damage stopped by armor, you take one point of damage converted to blunt damage. Or something like that. Thus Frodo takes a nine pointer in the chest, which is converted from 9 points of Pointy damage to 3 points of blunt damage. Enough to save his life, but not enough to prevent him getting knocked out.

Mike


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Lance D. Allen on August 29, 2002, 01:29:33 PM
Actually, that mythril shirt must have protected him from a lot of the blunt trauma.. It was a cave troll, if I remember, that got him with a thrust (not a throw). It would have crushed his ribcage even if it didn't pierce... but it's fantasy, and I think Mike's suggestion is perfectly suitable, and one I would probably use.

So let's check the math here... I'm wearing chain (AV 4) and I have a TO of 4. I get hit by a barbarian with ST 4 wielding a greatsword... His cumulative successes are, (arbitrarily) 2, so that makes the total damage of the attack a 9 before taking out TO, for a 5, then the armor takes away another 4, leaving a cut of 1 to, say zone III, location: ribcage. Throwing in Mike's suggestion, that also throws in a bashing wound of 1 to the ribcage.. Let's break down the effects...

Cut Zone III location ribcage:
BL: 0
Shock: 2
Pain: 4-WP

Bludgeon Zone III location ribcage:
BL: 0
Shock: 5-WP
Pain: 4-WP

(assume WP = 4) This leaves a total:

BL: 0
Shock: 3
Pain: 0

Hm... Better, but still not good enough... I think it worth considering that flexible armors (certain types of leather, chain, scale, brigs, etc.) transfer to bludgeoning at a rate of 2:1 from cutting, but 3:1 from piercing, which would have knocked the Bludgeon effects to a level 2 wound, for the following effects:
BL: 0
S: 4
P: 5-WP

for a cumulative:
BL: 0
S: 6
P: 1

Which seems suitable for taking a greatsword to the ribs, even through chain. What do you guys think?

Also, if we're thinking through this, I think it worthwhile to say that blunt damage uses the same transfer rates against flexible armors, to illustrate their relative ineffectiveness to blunt trauma.

::shrugs:: BUT we might just be overthinking things.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Jaif on August 29, 2002, 02:21:27 PM
In the books, it was a big orc that ran by everyone to skewer Frodo. In the movies, it was a cave troll who tossed everyone around like a rag doll and made funny noises.

I doubt this changes much, but we need to keep the important things straight. :-)

-Jeff


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Durgil on August 30, 2002, 05:11:53 AM
Quote from: Wolfen
Actually, that mythril shirt must have protected him from a lot of the blunt trauma.. It was a cave troll, if I remember, that got him with a thrust (not a throw).

Jeff is right, that was the way it happened in the Movie.  It was merely an orc that threw a spear in the book.  I not going to try to rationalize theatrics ; )
Quote from: Wolfen
I think it worth considering that flexible armors (certain types of leather, chain, scale, brigs, etc.) transfer to bludgeoning at a rate of 2:1 from cutting, but 3:1 from piercing, which would have knocked the Bludgeon effects to a level 2 wound, for the following effects:
BL: 0
S: 4
P: 5-WP

for a cumulative:
BL: 0
S: 6
P: 1

Which seems suitable for taking a greatsword to the ribs, even through chain. What do you guys think?

Also, if we're thinking through this, I think it worthwhile to say that blunt damage uses the same transfer rates against flexible armors, to illustrate their relative ineffectiveness to blunt trauma.

This maybe an easier way of handling this situation that I am interested in investigating a little more.  I still think the way I proposed is a bit more realistic and can handle the situation of high quality and magic armour better.  There also needs to be a wider variation of types at least, and I think how multiple layers of protection are calculated.

As far as the Cave Troll scene, magic would be the only way I could see of increasing the blunt force trauma protection of a particular type of armour (it would be exerting somekind of invisible force in the opposite direction to slow the speed of the weapon - like they hade in the movie "Dune."  

When does jake get back anyway?


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Jaif on August 30, 2002, 05:26:27 AM
Quote
It was merely an orc that threw a spear in the book. I not going to try to rationalize theatrics ; )


<places hands on the holy book>

The spear was thrust, not thrown.  The orc weasled its way past everyone to stab Frodo.  Sam busted the spear, Aragorn busted the orc. :-)  Then they ran out of the room, and after letting Aragorn carry him for awhile, Frodo finally admitted he was alive and well.

-Jeff


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Durgil on August 30, 2002, 06:25:37 AM
Please forgive me.  My comment was a slight against the Movie, not the Book!  I like the book version much better.  Mithril or not, IMC, if something like that scene in the movie would have happened, Frodo would have had a spear sheathed in mithril mail through him. : )  A humanoid creature that's 12 to 14 feet tall, IMO, has to be so strong just to get around, that if he was to get a hold of you, he could literally tear you limb from limb as easily as you and I can rip apart pieces of boiled chicken.

Well, maybe not that easily, but you get the picture.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Mike Holmes on August 30, 2002, 09:14:01 AM
Quote from: Durgil
A humanoid creature that's 12 to 14 feet tall, IMO, has to be so strong just to get around, that if he was to get a hold of you, he could literally tear you limb from limb as easily as you and I can rip apart pieces of boiled chicken.

Well, maybe not that easily, but you get the picture.


He would be about 4 times as strong as a six foot man of similar proportions. Which I don't think you caould find, given the bulk of the Troll, so, let's call him five times as strong, roughly. That is, if I can lift 200 lbs above my head, the Troll would be able to lift half a ton with as much realtive effort.

Stats-wise, if we are looking at ST as a proportional stat (which I think it is from the rules; you do multiply to get lifiting, right?), that puts the Troll at ST 22 or so (4.4*5). Can you say ouch! I knew you could. Call the spear ST+1 or so, and you get 24 points from a grazing blow. I think the Troll's was more square, so let's call it 25, nice and round. That means that the Mithril reduced the damage by 22 or so at least. Let's call it AV 25 just for kicks, and not worry about Frodo's TO. So, that means that the damage is converted at 3:1, or 8 points.

Yep, Frodo shoulda been skewered. Mithril shirt or no. Unless you want to increase the ratio to, say 6:1 or so, he's a goner.

Kinda tongue in cheek, but it illustrates a point. Forgive the movie, it's just a movie after all. But you can create realistic rules that cover these sorts of things.

Lance, I'd keep chain at 3:1 and make plate more effective, rather than the opposite. I was even thinking of bumping up chain. But I was also thinking that it would only apply to damage stopped (as opposed to your example), which would lead to one never taking more than one point of BFT.

Lots of potential problems. My suggestion was just to get people thinking, not an actual proposition for a rule. There are other things that this post brings up. Perhaps some of them should go in new threads. In fact when Jake gets back, he may want to split this one up a bit.

Mike


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Lyrax on August 30, 2002, 02:35:35 PM
It wasn't a 12 to 14 foot Troll.

It was a 6 to 8 foot orc.

Still scary, but not "throwing people around like rag dolls" scary.

Besides mithril is special, and should have its own rules.  I think the current rules are more than good enough for mundane armor.  Remember that mass weapons can cause LOTS of shock, even when they don't deal an armor-piercing wound.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Durgil on September 01, 2002, 06:15:12 AM
We already aggread that it was an orc, now we're talking about a 12' to 14' tall Cave Troll, and as far as special rules for mithril, why?  Just because it's magically created and the hardest metal known to the free peoples of Middle-earth and Sauron, doesn't change the fact that Frodo's shirt was still mail and should act as such.  Please don't start pulling RoleMaster on us by giving magical chain "plate" like qualities.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: contracycle on September 02, 2002, 06:53:11 AM
remember that some of the force is used pushing the target over, it converts to kinetic energy.  I don;t remember either seen well enough, but if frodo falls or flies you may well not need to account for every erg.  in fact, seeing as frodo's mass is going to be less than either troll or orc, you'd expect him to move.  Lastly, the mithril is not going to stretch, so when its trying to pentrate the body on the end of the spear tip, it is applying force across the whole inside circumference of the armour, which is quite large.  So there :)


Title: ARMOR VALUES, ...... My TROS take on Frodo, and the SPEAR
Post by: Thirsty Viking on September 02, 2002, 11:22:50 AM
first frodo and the spear,  

Quote
Tolkien wrote
But even as they retreated ... A huge orc-chieften  ... Leaped into the hamber; behind him his followers clustered in the dorway. ..... With a Thrust of his huge hide shield he turned boromir's sword and bore him backwards, throwing him to the ground.  Diving under Aragorn's blow with the speed of a striking snake he charged into the company and thrust his spear straight at Frodo.  The blow caught him on the right side, and frodo was hurled against the wall and pinned.


The Orc Chieftan, in a heroic move, did a simultaneous attack with Boromir a shield bash  won the initiative and scored a knockdown, (impressive) then on the second round as boromir gets to his feet does a duck and weave past aragorn and charges into the departing companions to make room for more orcs to follow him into the room (if he stands alone in the doorway he'll just join the 13 dead orcs on the floor).   He then attacks FRODO who has turned to go and achieves surprise,  at this point we can assume he picks frodo because he only has a couple CP
left for an attack.  rolling his last dice  he scores a hit, with his strength a strong one.  Frodo is a small guy, low strength,  low knockdown score, he got knocked down near a wall,   hence pinned against it.  One might even argue for knocked out,  and awakened by Aragorns' first aid skill,  though the book wasn't written  that way..  
in the rules...  
if we assume the properties of mithril chain are to convert cutting and piercing attacks into blunt dammage (impenatrable) and that it was just normal chain otherwise...   then giving frodo a toughness of 6 and 4 armor value a DL 13 piercing attack becomes  Bludgeoning 3  from the book
Quote
TROS  Bludgeoning  Dammage zone III ribcage
BL: 1  shock: 8  Pain: 6-WP
Winded, maybe with a broken rib.
May lose consciousness (+2)

as opposed to no armor
Quote
TROS  Puncturing  Dammage zone V chest
Pierced heart. Death is nearly instantaneous

or normal chain
quote]TROS  Puncturing  Dammage zone III chest
BL:8  Shock:7  Pain 8-WP
Deep but survivable; Wound hits deep but misses major organs.
[/quote]

Being winded  ...  senchal rules frodo can't speak,  and the shock taking all frodo's combat pool  Seneschal rules him knocked down.  Aragorn in a hurry picks him up like a football and disreguards minor movements by frodo as death spasms untill frodo speaks.  WHY?  Frodo has THE RING,  Aragorn didn't have time to get the ring,  he grabs frodo and flees.  Later Frodo suffers some pain,  perhaps willpower 5 left him with one die less in his combat pool, though I'd rate his WP as more than that probably a 7 and his high stat.

No mythical plate like qualities needed,  though people could argue a higher armor value, i'd  disagree. Being  light, quiet (no stealth mods), and easily hidden (noone realized he had it on before this, not even life long friends, or a very perceptive ranger who was Carrying him),  and converting all attacks to blunt damage with an AV of 4 without a gambeson  is quite enough in my opinion.

Before I go much further, let me state clearly I LIKE the PLAYABILITY of the rules like they are.   and though I am suggesting how things would be handled for realism...  they are TOO MUCH TROUBLE I feel  for the MINIMUM they add.  Role master had seperate charts for each individual weapon for each type of armor to accomodate the complexities.

The problems with this issue is that there are differing amor values for each type of attack form.  Silk was bashed as an armor type....  but silk had uses in armor.  Silk was an early balistic cloth,  capeable of reducing the penetration level of arrows, and making for easier extraction.  The silk wrapping the head and preventing full closure of the flesh around the
shaft..   lets say DR 2p however it had no protective value to speak of against b or c Just like today, you can thrust a knife through a bullet proof
vest. (i've heard fairly easily)  But if you shot the cop wearing  it with  an average bullet it converts the piercing damage into a less serious  blunt damage,  causing shock, possible knockout/knockdown, but saving his life.

Chain is real good against cutting attacks,  but it transmits the force into a blunt attack at a lower value (dispersion) a gambeson not being real effective against any dammage (if it has DR 1 consider that the average human toughness is 4  the value of chain) it does enhance the dispersion effect of chain.  When I run, any player in chain without a gambeson is DR3 Plate  disperses the force even better hence its value of 6.  But
plate doesn't stop the spike of a warhammer very well.  Notice the rules....  what Plate does do is convert a lot of cutting and piercing damage to widly dispersed blunt damage...  the reason mass weapons are so effective is that they have more of thier wieght out on the head... this imballance is a force multiplier trying to over ballance the ability of armor to disperse.  compared to a balanced sword...  which is more manuverable and can can parry better.

This same fact applies to football helmets as well,  the reason they work so well is the outer layer of plasic plate engages more of the inner layer in absorbing the force.  niether the outer Plate of plastic, nor the inner "gambeson" of foam/air tubes  are nearly as effective without the other.

When I see prices listed in a book,  I assume that that armor is first rate armor suitable for Landed Nobility.  It costs 30 gold, if better armor was available at 150 gold with any frequency,  they'd own it,  and it would be listed in the book,  Armor is life, and the wealth will pay well for it.  Barring magic I'd never expect to see a suit at more than 1 level above it.  If  those exist there would only be 1 or 2 master craftsman in the world who could make them without picking up big penalties.  It would take a long time, and have to be custom made with several fittings...

Are we talking then about TOURNAMENT grade JOUSTING armor? likely to cover only the areas likely to be hit in a joust and too heavey to use afoot?   Are we talking Parade armor that is ineffective in combat (large - CP), but keeps the lord safer from assassins?

These sorts of non generic fighting specialty armors,  maybe. Just remember to include and exploit the weak points.

As long as i'm here,  I'll approach the issue of shields and durability.

If you want rules for sword hacking pieces out of your opponents shield then we need rules for that same sword cutting into the wood and getting STUCK.  It is my contention  that for purposes of gameplay, unless specifically stated otherwise by the players, both fighters will fight in ways to minimize this, and that shields are reinforced enough to withstand blows along thier face.  If the shield has a metal band reinfocing the rim...  wouldn't this also lead to degrading the blade that cut into it.   do we need rules for loss of CP, or penalties to ATN as edges nic and dull?   I don't think so.

NOTE: I Jake told me that he didn't extract the items from other game systems.  That he had NO experience with them.  These are related from my 23 years of RPG experience only.
This system has brought in some of the best parts of the rolemaster damage tables and distiled them to where it can be run effectively with out a computer.  It has also brought in NICE spellcasters with limitations that make sence logically (blue wizard, your life force is running out).  It has also brought together some of the attack and defend elements from GURP combat that i liked so much,  and presented them in a better fashion.  

You want to layer chain leather and gambeson... ok +1 for AV 5, but don't be surprised if you have more penalties than FULL PLATE. Plate breast plate on Full chain (includes gambeson)...  ok AV 7  but live with  the negatives it brings..
Movement Rate ... CP...  Stealth... Perception.
If you think the penalties are too harsh compared to full chain, or just full plate...  stick to the typical armor combinations,  because the ancients agreed with you....  thats how the armor became typical.

Your decisions may vary


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Durgil on September 06, 2002, 08:50:08 AM
I'm sorry it has taken me so long to reply to you commit, Thirsty Viking.  I've been mulling over your last post, which I must say is quite good.  I'd still argue over the quilt gambeson "not being real effective against any damage."

That is just not supported in any of the literature that I have.  Also, when I talk about different layers of armour, I'm not trying to account for a person who is wearing the mail without the gambeson, it's the circumstance of wearing the mail with something other than quilt such as over leather or a heavy cloth that I’m trying to account for.  Those should be adequate to protect the wearer from chaffing, but shouldn't provide as good of protection than wearing the mail over quilt.  The quilt on its own is a decent form of protection, if that’s all you've got money or expertise to come up with, and I have also seen examples of it having metal rings sown on to it to or studded to help augment its protection from edged weapons.

I guess it just comes down to personal tastes.  I really love the combat of The Riddle of Steel, I just want to see more detail when it comes to armour and its uses.


Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Thirsty Viking on September 06, 2002, 11:55:33 AM
Quote from: Durgil
I'm sorry it has taken me so long to reply to you commit, Thirsty Viking.  I've been mulling over your last post, which I must say is quite good.  I'd still argue over the quilt gambeson "not being real effective against any damage."

If you read my post closely,  i gave it an AV of 1 if used by itself.  That isn't real effective compared to say  chain mail (with gambeson
at 4,  3 without  IMO) or plate mail, but it is better than not having it...  what AV are you aguing for?
Quote

That is just not supported in any of the literature that I have.  Also, when I talk about different layers of armour, I'm not trying to account for a person who is wearing the mail without the gambeson, it's the circumstance of wearing the mail with something other than quilt such as over leather or a heavy cloth that I’m trying to account for.  


To be consistent, and agreeing with you that gambeson is worth SOME armor by itself  (just talking about unimproved quilted here)
then wearing chain mail over gambeson is a layered armor and should be acknowledged as such.

Quote

Those should be adequate to protect the wearer from chaffing, but shouldn't provide as good of protection than wearing the mail over quilt.  The quilt on its own is a decent form of protection, if that’s all you've got money or expertise to come up with, and I have also seen examples of it having metal rings sown on to it to or studded to help augment its protection from edged weapons.


Now your talking about improved quilted cloth  ....   if it is totally
covered with linked metal rings  they call it chain mail.  :-)

Quote

I guess it just comes down to personal tastes.  I really love the combat of The Riddle of Steel, I just want to see more detail when it comes to armour and its uses.

Well  though i didn't lay out a table,  what could be implied from my post is roughly  as follows


Code:

Assuming Full Suits

STD  are the armors as written in the book...  un announced asuption is they are the best balanced armors (most effiecent available) and hence became standard.... The following ia a game table based on theory not knowledge,  and a 1st draft at that....

      Armor Type           Armor Value        CP mod         MV mod      STLTH mod
Padded Armor                    1                -1                           -1
Leather Armor        (std)      2
improved Padded                 2                                             -2
Greatly improved padded         3                -2              -1           -1
Unpaded Chain                   3                -1              -1           -3
Improved Leather                3                -1              -1           -1
Chain over padded (std)         4                -2              -1           -2
Chain over Leather              5                -3              -2           -3
Plate over padding (std)        6                -3              -2           -4
Plate and leather               6                -3              -2           -5
Plate and Chain                 7                -4              -4           -5

Remember the FIT of armor is important....  if you have PLATE  that fits and you find chain,  the plate will not fit while wearing the chain.  armor that doesn't fit propperly has additional negatives, and possible less AV



Title: A Question about Armor
Post by: Durgil on September 06, 2002, 12:46:10 PM
I've been playing around with some house rules of my own on this matter.  You can check them out here (http://www.shadowharn.net/viewtopic.php?t=884).

And by the way, that is an excellant post on the "Ambidexterity Post." (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3189)  I've been poping back in all afternoon waiting for Jake's response.